ED 108 402

DOCUMENT RESUME

88 EC 072 946

AUTHOR McKinney, James D.; Krueger, MarionTITLE Models for Educating the Learning Disabled (MELD)

Project Period 1973-74: Final Evaluation Report.INSTITUTION Durham'County Schools, N.C.SPONS AGENCY Bureau of Elementary and Secondary Education

(DHEW/OE), Washington, D.C.; North Carolina StateDept. of Public Instruction, Raleigh.

PUB DATE ,Jul 74NOTE 50p.

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.76 HC-$1.95 PLUS POSTAGEpESCRIPTORS Academic Achievement; Behavior Change; *Elementary

Education; Exceptional Child Research; FollowupStudies; *Learning Disabilities; *Program Evaluation;*Remedial Programs; Social Adjustment

IDENTIFIERS Elementary Secondary Educat n Act Title III; ESEATitle III; Project MELD

ABSTRACTReported were first and second year data on the

Models for Educating the Learning Disabled (MELD) Project, as well asa followup study of students who had participated in the MELDProject. First year data was based on a sample of 108 children infirst through fourth grades, while second year data reported a sampleof 97 children in first through fourth grades. A sample of 48children (second through fifthigrades) who had received services the_previous year were followed,up and retested with measures ofachievement and classroom behavior. Remediation was carried onaccording to either a deficit model which emphasized the remediationof specific weaknesses through one-to-one instruction by resourceteacher, or an eclectic model,hich stressed teacher consultation andattempted to capitalize on strengths as well as remediate weaknesses.Data indicated that the average,child who participated in the programwas below grade level when referred and was functioning at gradelevel when intervention was terminated. Classroom teachers whoreferred students to the program rated their children assignificantly improved in both academic skills and personal/socialbehavior. Interviews with referring classroom teachers offeredconsiderable evidence of teacher acceptance and support for theprogram. However, followup data suggested that children who receivedservices the previous year failed to progress academically at thesame rate over the first half of the next year without additionalservices. (GW)

US DE PART MEN, OF HEALTHDUCATUN it WELFARE

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OFEDUCATIONN' f N 14f PAC)

Fr, t tt I) ROMtut k OFF t'ttN

N ' "t' JI4 ()PIN, tt N Nt Y RE PRE

F , N -'I ' I' ' -N. l A ,.'ut

Final Evaluation Report

Models for Educating the Learning Disabled (MELD)

Project Period 1973-1974

Prepared by

James D. McKinney, Senior Investigator

Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center

Chapel H- 11, North Carolina

and

Marion Krueger, Project MELD Director

Durham County Schools

Durham, North Carolina

July 1, 1974

Submitted.to

Thn North Carolina State Departmmt of Public Instruction,

DiJi.,io,1 of D.-tvelopment

Acknowledgements

This report'was prepared pursuant to an evaluation contract to

the first author from the Durham County Public Schools under an ESEA

Title III grant from the N. C. State Department of Public Instruction.

The conclusions and interpretations expressed in this report are

those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or

policies of the contractor or the funding agency.

The authors wish to express particular thanks to each of the

project teachers: Linda Andersdn, Diane Cheskis, Sue Goldstein,

Jeanne Healy, Pam Hunter, and Margaret Scarborough, for their persistence

and considerable efforts in collecting the evaluation data. Their

commitment to the evaluation effort has been remarkable And has contributed

not only to the assessment of project objectives, but also to our

knowledge about the learning disabled child. Finally, the authors wish

to thank Mary Elie Comstock, Ron Haskins and Miriam Clifford for their

valuable aid in the preparation of the report.

Introduction

Project MELD is a cooperative effort of the Durham County, Orange

County and Chapel Hill-Carrboro public schools which was designed to

serve learning disabled children. Project MELD is currently in

its second year of funding by ESEA Title III. The major goal for

the project is to identify effective and efficient models for increasing

the academic and social competences of children with learning disabilities.

The project proposes to carry out services according to two alternative

approaches (Deficit-centered versus Eclectic) with children in the

first four grades.

Deficit-Centered Remediation. The deficit centered approach stresses

the remediation of specific weaknesses in academic skills. Children

who are taught under thi3 model receive individual instruction for 30-

45 minutes each day for a period of 3-4 months. The instructional

objective for this model is to remediate deficits in basic information-

processing skills to the point where the child can profit from the regular

instructional prbgram. The learning disabilities teachers assume the

major responsibility for remedial instruction and offer only general support

and interpretive consultation to the referring classroom teacher. Thus,

the model does not require that the prescriptive programming be

carried out by the classroom teacher.

Eclectic Remediation. On the other hand, the eclectic approach stresses

teacher consultation aimed at maint-Ining the child in his regular class-

room. The eclectic approach not only attempts to compenlate for identi-

fied werdatesses but also capitalizes on strengths as well in order to

determine the most effective management techniques and materials that

can he used by the .classroom teacher. Students who arc taught by this model

2

receive instruction from the learning disabilities teacher for 1-3 hours

each day for 2-8 weeks. In addition to remedial instruction, an

educational prescription is prepared for each child to be used by the

classroom teacher. An extensive follow-up procedure is used which includes

classroom demonstrations, assistance with materials and methods, and

re-evaluation and modification of the prescription if necessary.

Continuing Objectives

The continuing objectives of Project MELD are: (1) to increase the

cognitive and social skills of learning disabled children, (2) to

increase the positive effective and affective interaction between the

classroom teacher and the learning disabled child, (3) to increase

parental knowledge and understanding of the learning disabled child,

(4) to increase public awareness of specific learning disabilities, and

(5) to determine the cost effectiveness of the two treatment approaches.

Summary of First Year Evaluation

During the 1972-73 school year the, project delivered services to

approximately 220 children in grades'1-4. Services were carried out

according to either the deficit or eclectic approach in either a school

or clinic setting. The school based programs were operated by the three

administrative units listed above and the clinic based program was

Located in the Division for Disorders of Development and Learning of

the Child Development Institute, University of North Carolina.

In order to evaluate program effectiveness, a sample of 108 children

who participated in the project were pre- and post-tested on measures of

acadelnie achic-rement and classroom bahavior. In addition, parents were

raked to complete home behavior rating scale and a questionnaire. Also,

35 class room teachers who referred children to the project were interviewed

twice dtiritv, velr in o cost analy,lis was perrormod.

3

The analysis of these data indicated that ProjeLL '{''LD was highly

successful in producing educationally significant gains in the academic

achievement of children who might otherwise be expected ..to make little

progress over the period of the study. Also, the project was successful

in demonstrating significant progress it. the development of Phonetic

language skills by learning disabled children. In general, these

results were substantiated by teacher reports of student progress.

Although significant changes were found in two areas measured by

the Classroom Behavior Inventory for two of the groups, it must be

concluded that the project had little impact on teacher's perceptions

of the academic and social behavior of LD children as measured by this

instrument. On the other hand, during the interviews a large majority

of classroom teachers commented on improved self-concept, attention,

persistence and activity level. Thus, some evidence was obtained to

suggest that the classroom teachers of LD children did perceive progress

in social and personal functioning that was not documented by the

instrument that was used. This year another instrument was selected in

the hopes of better documenting these changes.

The results from interviews with referring classroom teachers

offered considerable evidence of teacher acceptance and support for the

project. A large number of teachers felt that they had gained a greater

understanding of the problems experienced by LD children and were

better able to help them as a result of the project. The teachers particularly

valued the diagnostic work-ups and conferences in this regard and were

frequently able to cite changes that they had made In their approach

with the child as the result of this service.

6

4

In general, the teachers reported an accepting, favorable attitude

on the part of most parents. Several of the teachers indicated that they

had profited professionally from joint conferences in that they were

better able to deal with pdrents concerning sensitive issues with their

children. In may respects,, the record on parent involvement in this

project has been 'remarkable and may be regarded as one of the most effective

components of the program.

At the present time, the evaluation findings reported above do

not support the conclusion that either model is more effective than the

other in producing gains in the cognitive or social competencies of

learning disabled children: Similarly, very little evidence was

obtained that either model was more effective at some grade levels than

at others, or that either model was more effective in a clinic setting

than in a school setting. Given these outcomes, the eclectic model in

the school setting appeared to be more cost-effective than the deficit

model in either setting due to the larger number of children that were

served. However, additional information on the effectivenss of teacher

consultation services under this model must be obtained in order to

adequately compare the cost-effectiveness of the two approaches.

Second Year Evaluation Strategy

The evaluation of objectives during the 1973-74 project year

was carried out in three phases. The goal for the first phase

was to determine the effectiveness of the two models in producing

behavioral change in each of the areas delineated by the specific

objectives. The evaluation design for this phase was a 2(Deficit versus

Eclectic) x 4(grades 1-4) factorial with 2 repeated measures (pre and post).

A total of 97 children wire sampled from those served by the project.

Children u-re selected who best fit the definition of learning disabilities

that was used in the project, and an attempt was made to form groups

that were comparable with respect to sex ratio, age and ability level.

`Test Instruments

(1) Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT). This test provides

measures of mathematics, reading recogdition, reading comprehension,

spelling, and general information. The children were pre-tested as

part of the diagnostic procedure and were post-tested after a period

of approximately five months in the project.

(2) Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT). In order to provide a more

complete assessment of spelling skills, the WRAT spelling subtest was

given on a pre- and post-test basis. The pre- and post-test interval was

the same as'that for the PIAT.

(3) Phonics Test (PT). This test was designed to assess improvement

in basic language skills.. Each child was pre-tested as part of the

diagnostic procedure and was post-tested after five months:

(4) Pupil Rating Scale (PRS). Referring classroom teachers were

requested to fill out the Myklebust Pupil Rating Scale when they referred

a child and again approximately five weeks after he had been released from

the program. This measure provides teacher ratings on a five-point scale

of Auditory Comprehension, Language, Orientation, Motor Coordination, and

Personal-Social Behavior.

(5) Structured Interview. During February and March the external

evaluator conducted interviews with 24 classroom teachers (4 per school)

in order do assess their views regarding the referral, diagnostic and

treatment process in their school. Each interview lasted approximately

30 --,invites and an attempt was made to elicit specific opinions about the

strengths and weaknesses of_each program and the teachers' estimates of

the arademic and behavioral progress of their children. These findings

were roportPd in n3rrative form.

6

(6) Parent_questionnaire. At the end of the school year parents

were asked to complete a questionnaire which assessed their opinions

of the program and their child's progress. They were asked to indicate

the strengths and weaknesses of the program from their point of view and

to state whether they would recommend it to other parents.

The objective for the second phase of the evaluation strategy was

to assess the longitudinal impact of Project MELD through the analysis

of follow-up data. The follow-up design was a 2(model) x 4(grade)

factorial in which 12 children at each grade level who received services

during the 1972-73 school year were located and re-tested with the PIAT,

Classrdom Behavior Inventory and Phonics Battery. Also, their parents

were asked to complete a follow-up questionnaire.

The third phase consisted of a process evaluation to determine

the extent to which changes in student progress could be attributed to

the activities of the program. The data for the process evaluation were

obtained from: (1) on-site interviews by the external evaluator with

project teachers, classroom teachers, and administrators; (2) the

analysis of teacher activity logs; (3) observation during teacher workshops,.

and (4) a review of project management procedures with the project director.

Part of the process evaluation included an analysis of the relative cost

of each model of iamediation.

Evaluation Results

Teacher Activities

The teacher activity logs were collected and summarized in Table 1

in order to provide an overview of program activities in each model.

A total of 231 children were referred to project teacher; of this numberi i

174 (75%) were diagnosed as learning disabled. Of those who were

identified 116 (677) were treated in project clas-ws and another 18 were

9

Table 1

Summary of Teacher Activities

.

i

Eclectic Deficj

OGFPG Stan Holt Total LA

Number referred 29 55 46 130 42 33

Dia)Tnosed LD 20 40 41 101 34 23

Crated in Class 25 21 21 67 14 19

Trcatod by Consult 6 1 9 16 0 0

No. of Teacher Conferences 49 84 74 207 84 46

Average Confer/Teach 3.50 4.67 .3.52 3.89 5.25 3.54

Teacher Consults 38 80 141 259 0 6

Avcage Consults/Teach 3.17 4.44 8.81 5.47 0 1.50

Classroom Observation 95 74 57 226 2 0

Parent Conferences f 51 66 69 186 29 40

Teach Attending Workshops 6 18 6 30 16 2

No. of Times/Teach 4 2.27 4 3.42- 1.56 8.0

Parents Attending Workshops 15 15 16 46 3 4

No, of Times/Parent 1.27 1.67 1.19 1.37 1 1

j1 i le

Table 1

Summary of Teachef Activities

Eclectic Deficit

FPG Stan Holt Total LR OG HV TotalGrandTotal

29

t

55 46 130 42 . 33 26 101 231

20 40 41 101 34 23 16 73 174

25 21 21 67 14 19 16 49 116

6 1 9 16 0 0 2 2 18

erences 49 84 74 207 84 46 51 181 388

3.50 4.67 3.52 3.89 5.25 3.54 3.92 4.24 4.06

38 80 141 259 0 5 16 22 281

:ch 3.17 4.44 8.81 5.47 0 1.50 2.29 1.26 3.36

95 74 57 226 2 0 0 2 228

51 66 69 186 29 40 36 105 291

shops 6 18 6 30 16 2 7 - 25 55

4 2.27 4 3.42 1.56 8.0 4.71 4.76 4.09

.rkshops 15 15 16 46 3 4 2 9 55

1.27 1.67 '1.19 1.37 1 1 1 1 1.19 3

8

treated in project classes and another 18 were treated by consultation

to the classroom teacher. All together 79% of the children who showed

learning disabilities received treatment.

These figures indicate a considerable improvement in the efficiency

of the referral and diagnostic procedures'over that observed the

previous year. During the 1972-73 school year only 49% of the referrals

were treated in project classes. This finding seems to be due to a

number of factors related to the tenure of the program in the various schools.

Mady schools had not had LD programs the previous year and a large

'backlog of children who required special services had developed. Also,

many classroom teachers were unfamiliar with the concept of learning

disabilities and tended to refer children with other types of learning

and/or adjustment problems. In general, these data underscore the

importance of staff development efforts and an annual screening. program

to the efficient management of LD services.

Table 1 suggests that the two models provided somewhat different

services which were consistent with the project objectives. Although

the number of teacher conferences devoted to either gathering information

about the child or to the reporting of results were about the same

in each model, the eclectic teachers clearly spent more time in consultation

with classroom teachers than the deficit teacher. Since the eclectic

teachers also provided treatment by consultation, 82% of the LD students_

in theirischools were served compared to 69% in the deficit schools.

On the Cher hand, the same proportion of LD children received individualized

services in project classes of either model.

AhOne finding that is worthy of note is the high rate of teacher

participation In workshops. Of those teachers who referred children to

the program 41"/ attended at least one workshop (367 for the eclectic schools

,

9

and 49% for the deficit -chools). These figures are particularly

impressive when one considers that many of the referring teachers

participated the previous year. Perhaps more impressive was the finding

that 41% of the parents o children who were served attended workshons.

In many respects the continued success of the MELD Trogram in promoting

parent participation is remarkable.

Student Characteristics

Table 2 provides a summary of stude'' . .7!stics for the

evaluation sample. The sample contained bb uoys and 31 girls. The

---total sample of 97 children was composed of 70 white students and 27

/

black students. The average IQ for the eclectic group was 94.89 and

that for the deficit group' was 97.27. The socio-economic status of

each child was estimated by using Hollingshead's scale for occupation

4of father. The average SES rating for the eclectic groups was 3.98 and

that for the deficit groups was 3.50. Although the groups were well

matched for IQ and CA withing grade levels, children in the first and

second grade eclectic classes were from higher SES homes compared to

those in the deficit classes in grades 1 and 2, whereas the opposite

trend was found for the two upper grades (F-.3.11, p4.03). Also, children

in the deficit classes received treatment fbr a longer period of time

(avergge=32.84 hours) compared to those in the eclectic classes :average=

25.04 hours).

... . .

Academic Achievement

The average pre- and post-test scores on the PIAT, WRAT spelling and

..-

Phonics tests are given in Table 3 for each group b} grade. 'tne average

gaIns on each of the achievement measures for each group are shown in TableA.\

Pre-_Lest Analysis:_ in order tc gdetermine whether the various groups

were comparable in initial acevement, a 2(model) x 4(grade) analysis of

Summary of Student Characteristics

Model

Grc.de

Eclectic D ii

N

Age

IQ

SES

Hours it Class

12

80.41

100.91

3.75

20.00

8 17

89.37 104.68

95.12 92.37

3.25 4.12

24.12 27.68

11

118.18.

91.18

4.81

28.36

9 12

78.77 89.83

92.44 97.91

4:22 3.33

29.00 39.25

16-

Table 2

Summary of Student Chatacteristics

Ecle?tic Deficit

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

12 8 - 17 11 9 12 14 14

.4.'

.41 89.37 104.68 118.18. 78.77 89.83 103.07 115.33

100. 95.12 92.37 91.18 92.44 97.91 98.57 100.16

- 3.75 3.25 4.12 4.81 4.22 3.33 3.57 2.91

20.00 \ 24.12 27.68 28.36 29.00 39.25 31.85 31.25

Table 3

Average Pre and Post-test Achievement Scores for Each Group

Model

Grade

Eclectic

,

,

Phonics Test Pre 19.00 49.87 63.56 53.36 16.33 48.:

Post 37.58 75.00 75.37 69.00 40.55 70.!

1,,RAT Snell Pre 1.23 1.76 2.64 2.26 0.90 1.1

Post 1.49 2.51 2.93 2.31 1.35 2.!

PTAT Mnth Pre 1.20 1.73 1.97 3.39 0.75 1.,

Post 1.51 2.27 2.81 4.40 1.10 2..

?TAT Read Rec Prey 1.16 1.80 2.68 2.18 1.21 1.'

Post 1.60 2.60 2.90 2.35 1.50 20

PTAT Rend Comp Pre 1.23 2.13 2.68 2.66 1.41 2.

Post 1.86 2.67 2.87 3.03 1.86 2.

PIAT Snell Pre 1.15 1.78 2.65 2.77 1.05 .1.'

Post 1.50 2.38 2.88 2.68 1.41 2.

rtia Inf Pre 1.76 1.58 2.67 3.82 0.76 1.

Post 2.16 2.51 3.11 4.47 1.30 2.

PIAT Total Pre 1,11 1.71 2.40 2.88 0.90 1.

Post 1.56 2.37 2.85 3.28 1.30 2.

Notes: With exception of Phonics raw score all variables are grade equivalents

Table 3

Average Pre and Post-test Achievement Scores for Each Group

Eclectic Deficit

4

19.00 49.87 63.56 53.36 16.33 48.33 71.14 77.6]

37.58 75.00 75.37 69.00 40.55 70.50 86.21 87.84

1.23 1.76 2.64 2,26 0.90 1.80 2.41 3.13

1.49 2.51 2.93 2.31 . 1.35 2.52 3.01 3.64

1.20 1.73 1.97 3.39 0.75 1.49 2.37 3.90

1.51 2.27 2.81 4.40 1.10 2.50 3.24 4.85

1.16 1.80 2.68 2.18 1.21 1.94 2.44 3.10

1.60 2.60 2.90 2.35 1.50 2.40 3.18 3.75

1.23 2.13 2.68 '2.66 1.41 2.31 2.62 3.38

1.86 2.67 2.87 3.03 1.86 2.64 3.08 3.96

1.15 1.78 2.65 2.77 1.05 1.97 2.58 3.26

1.50 2.38 2.88 2.68 1.41 2.77 3.20 3.80

1.76 1.58 2.67 3.82 0.76 1.80 3.02 3.58

2.16 2.51 3.11 4.47 1.30 2.31 3.76 4.16

1.11 1.71 2.40 2.88 0.90 1.79 2.46 3.28

1.56 2.37 2.85 3.28 1.30 2.45 3.12 3.96

ception of Phonics raw scores all variables are grade equivalents.

1 i

12

variance was carried out on each pre-test measure. This analysis

indicated that the deficit and eclectic groups were well matched on

each of the PIAT and WRAT measures within grade levels. However, children

in the third and fourth grade eclectic classes were found to score

lower initially on the Phonics test than those of the same age in the

deficit classes (F=3.86, p4.05).

Average Gains. A Series of related t-tests was performed on the

mean pre- and post-tests for each group and for the total sample to assess

the significance of changes on each measure. Table 4 shows the average

,change scores and related t's for each group. In every case, the

magnitude of these changes proved to be significant at a probability level

greater than .01.

In order to compare the relative effectiveness of the deficit and

eclectic models as a function of grade level, a 2(model) x 4(grade)

analysis of variance was carried out on the change scores for each

variable. The results for the Phonics test revealed that children in

the first two grades showed greater gains han those in grades 3 and 4;

however, no significant differences were found between the two models in

this regard. Although this finding was varified by an analysis of co-

variance in which the pre-test scores were held constant, it should be

noted that the scores on this test were not standardized. Therefore,

those results could reflect ceiling effects at upper grade levels.

The analysis of gains on the WRAT spelling test indicated that the

children in deficit classes made greater progress in this area than those

in eclectic classes (F = 4.90, p4.05). Also, children in the second

grade displayed greater gains on this test compared to those in the other

three grades (F = 3,56, p C.05). Essentially, the same findings were

obtained on the NAT spelling subtest in that the deficit groups showed

13

Table 4

Average Change Scores on Achievement Measures for Each Group

Variable Eclectic Deficit Total

, -

Xd t Xd t Xd t

Phonics Test 16.70 11.41 17.25 8.54 16.97 13.63

WRAT Spell . .30 4.60 .58 6.99 .44 8.10

PIAT Math .09 5.71 .81 5.28 \ .75 7.70

PIAT Read Rec .36 4.94 .56 7.98 .46 8.97

RIAT Read Comp .39 5.52 .44 4.58 .42 6.97

PIAT Spell .24 2.28 .58 5.05 ".41 5.17

PIAT Inf .57 4.20 .60 5.41 .58 6.73

PIAT Total .47 9.27 .61 12.19 .54 14.95

Notes: Grade equivalent scores for variables except Phonics Raw Score.

Change significantly greater than 0 at 134.01 in each case.

19

14

greater gains than eclectic groups (F = 9.2/, pc .003). In both cases,

these effects were maintained when the pre-test scores were controlled

by covariance procedures.

Significant group or grade differences were not observed on the PIAT

math, reading comprehension, or general information subtests. However,

a reliable group x grade interaction was found on the PIAT reading

recognition subtest (F = 4.50, p <.01). This effect indicated that the

eclectic groups were superior to the deficit groups in the first and

second grades on this subtest, whereas the deficit groups were superior to

the eclectic groups in the third and fourth grades. The analysis of

gains in PIAT total achievement showed a trend which favored the deficit

groups; however, the differences between the two models failed to reach

an acceptable level of significance and could be attributed to the

differences reported above on the spelling subtest.

Discussion. As in the previous year, it may be concluded from

these data that project MELD was quite successful in producing educationally

important gains in children who might otherwise fail to progress over the

period of treatment. Given the pre-post test interval, one would expect

the average child to show a gain of approximately .42 years. Inspection

of the gains in Table 4 indicates that the average child in project MELD

met this expectation in three out'of five academic areas and exceeded it

in two others. Similarly, inspection. of Table 3 shows that the average

child in the project was below grade level in total achievement when referred

and was functioning at grade level when returned to the regular school

program.

At the same time, the results from the comparisons of the two models

are not all together consistent with those obtained from the previous year.

15

Although the data as a whole do not support the conclusion that either

model is more effective than the other in producing cognitive gains. the

trend shown in Table 4 generally favors the deficit approach. Als),

rather clear differences were obtained between the deficit and eclectic

groups with respect to gains in'spelling.

One factor which complicates these findings is that students in the

deficit classes received more instruction on a one-to-one basis than

those in the eclectic classes. Also, during this year a greater effort

was made to draw a clear distinction between the kinds of services

offered under each model. Since the deficit approach stressed the

remediation of weaknesses in basic academic skills, this model may have

provided a more concentrated program than one which also attempted to

deal with strengths and the child's functioning in the regular classroom.

Similarly, the differences between the two models with respect to gains

in spelling may merely reflect a greater emphasis in this area on the part

of the deficit teachers.

Another factor which should be considered in interpreting the differences

between the models in academic gains is the absolute magnitude of the

differences. The average difference between the deficit and eclectic groups

in gains on the WRAT spelling test was .28 years or less than 3 months.

Since both models produced significant gains in this area, one might

question whether a difference of this magnitude is educationally important,

particularly in light of the fact that the overall difference between

the two models in total achievement was only one month.

Classroom Behavior

The average pre- and post-test ratings on the Pupil Rating Scale are

given in Table 5 for each model by grade. Table 6 shows the average change

in mean ratings on each scale for ea(11 group.

Table 5

Average Pre-test and Change Scores on the Pupil Rating Scale

odel Eclectic De

Grade 1 2 L 3 4 1 .2

Auditory Comprehension Pre 8.33 8,75 7.82 8.66 7.88 8.75

Xd .91 1.25 1.82 .77 2.22 1.00

Spoken Language Pre 11.50 12.00 11.11 12.22 10.11 11.00

Xd .91 -.12 1.52 -.55 1.22 1.33

Orientation Pre 9.00 9.62 9.58 10.66 9.00 7.91Xd 1.50 1,12 .88 1.00 .33 1.33

Motor Coordination Pre 7.66 7.75 8.35 8.55 7.88' 7.50

Xd .33 1.00 -.11 1.00 .11 .41

Personal/Social Pre 19.75 18.75 19.82 23.33 20.00 20,33

Xd 2.50' 1.00 .88 .44 .55 1.25

Verbal Score Pre 19.83 20.75 18.94 20.88 18.00 19.75

Xd 1.83 1.12 3.35 .22 3.44 2.33

Non-Verbal Score Pre 35.58 36.12 37.37 42.54 36.88 35.75

Xd 5.16 3.12 1.64 2.44 1,00 3600

Total Scale Score Pre 55.41 56.87 56.31 63,42 54.88 55.50

Xd 7.00 4.25 5.00 3.77 4.44 5.33

Table-5

Average Pre-test and Change Scores on the Pupil Rating Scale

4 Eclectic Deficit

2 3 4 1 2 3 4'1-

Pre 8.33 8.75 7.82 8.66 7.88 8.75 8.14 8.78

Xd .91 1.25 1.82 .77 2.22 1.00 1.42 1.14

Pre 11.50 12.00 11.11 12.22 .10.11 11.00 11.78 12.21

Xd .91 -.12 1.52 -.55 1.22 1.33 1.57 -.28

Pre 9.00 9.62 9.58 10.66 9.00 7.91 10.00 10.50

Xd 1.50 1.12 .88 1.00 .33 1.33 .71 1.21

Pre 7.66 7.75 8.35 8.55 7.88 7.50 7.87 8.50

Xd .33 1.00 -.11 1.00 .11 .41 .78 .50

Pre 19.75 18.75 19.82 23.33 20.00 20.33 19.78 22.42

Xd 2.50 1.00 .88 .44 .55 1.25 .57 .42

Pre 19.83 20.75 18.94 20.88 18.00 19.75 19.92 21.00

Xd 1.83 1.12 3.35 .22 3.44 2.33 3.00- .

.85

Pre 35.58 36.12 37.37 42.54 36.88 35.75 37.64 40.08

Xd 5.16 3.12 1.64 2.44 1.00 3600 1.35 2.85

Pre 55.41 56.87 56.31 £3.42 54.88 55.50 57.56 61.08

Xd 7.00 4.25 5.00 3.77 4.44 5.33 4.35 3.71 .o.-

1-A

as

Table 6

Average Change in Ratings on the Pupil Rating Scale

Eclectic Deficit

Xd t Xd

Auditory Comprehension 1.28 5.13** 1.38 5.19**

Spoken Language .67 2.28** .91 2.90**.

Oriew:ation 1.10 3.93** .93 3.21**

Motor Coordination .41 1.94* .48 2.65**

Fersonut/Social Behavior 1.23 2.35* .69 1.56

Verbal Score 1.95 4.32** 2.30 4.51**

Non - Verbal Score 2.97 3.45** 2.12 2.68**

Total Scale Score 5.15 5.12** 4.42 3.99**

Notes: * change greater than 0 at 1)4.05

** change greater than 0 at p. .01

Table 6

Average Change in Ratings on the Pupil Rating Scale

Eclectic Deficit Total

Xd t Xd t Xd

.n 1.28 5.13** 1.38 5.19** 1.33 7.32**

.67 2.28** .91 2.90** .80 3.70**

1.10 3..93** .93 3.21** 1.02 5.04**

.41 1.94* .48 2.65** .45 3.24**

for 1.23 2.35* .69 1.56 .95 2.80**

1.95 4.32 ** 2.30 4.51** 2.13 6.25**

2.97 3.45** 2.12 2.68** 2.53 4.36**

5.15 5.12** 4.42 3.99** 4.77 6.38**

e greater than C at p 4.05

e greater than 0 at p 4 .01

o

5

18

Pre-tent Analysi:s. The analysis of the pre-test ratings for each

scale indicated thac there were no significant differences between the

groups or among the, grade levels in the initial ratings assigned by

classroom teachers.

Average Change in Teacher Ratings. The results of a series of t -tests

for related samples performed on the change scores for eazh PRS variable

are shown in Table 6. Table 6 sh.)ws that the classroom teachers of children

who received eclectic remediation rated their children as significantly-di

im-

proved in all areas. The teachers of children who received deficit

remediation rated their children significantly higher in all areas

except personal and social behavior.

In order to compare the changes in teacher ratings for deficit groups

and those for the eclectic groups a 2(model) x 4(grade) analysis of

variance was performed on each PRS variable. In general, this analysis

failed to show significant differences between the two models on each

scale and on the total scores. Students in grades 1 and 3 were rated

higher on the Spoken Language scale than those in grades 2 and 4. However,

no other significant grade effects were observed.

Discussion. These results indicate that teachers who referred children

to project MELD perceived significant progress in the ability to comprehend,

use language, perceive relationships and perform in a coordinated fashion.

On the other hand, the results were equivocal with respect to personal and

social behavior. Apparently, the teachers in the eclectic schools did

perceive significant progress in these areas, whereas those in the deficit

schools saw little progress in their children's classroom behavior.

These results mly reflect the fact that teachers in the eclectic

schools received greater assistance from the LD ter:cher in dealing with

issues involting the child's behavior in the clannroom. It was noted during

4.6

19

the interviews with classroom teachers that the teachers in deficit schools

were more likely to view the LD teacher as a specialist in "learning

problems)", whereas those in the eclectic schools more often viewed the

LD teacher as a consultant on any topic involving the child's progress in

school. Also, the eclectic teachers were in a better position to #stablish

and maintain intervention programs aimed at improvement in personal/so ial

functioning since many of their activities took place in the classroom

and involved the cooperation of the classuom teacher.

Interviews with Classroom Teachers.

The evaluator conducted interviews with 24 classruom teachers (4 per

school) during March in order to assess their views of-thee-programs.

Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. Whenever possible, teachers

: were selected who were not interviewed in the previous year. Four of the

six principals were available for interviews on the scheduled de)" and

their opinions about the program were also elicited.

Referral System. Each of the teachers was asked how many children

they had referred, whether they were selected for the program, and how

quickly they were seen. In almost every case, the teachers reported that

referrals were processed within two weeks. As in the previous year, the

teachers were greatly impressed with the immediacy of services and the

promptness of diagnostic feedback. The availability of the project

teachers was valued greatly and was perceived as one of the major

strengths of the program. Several teachers commented that this factor

set the MELD program apart from other types of assistance which were

slower in providing services. However, as in the previous years, the

evaluator could not locate any teachers who enjoyed filling out forms.

Two of the major Factors which seemed to facilitate the referral

process in several schools were the teachers' familiarity with the program

20

as carried out the previous year and the year-end screening of children

last year for services this year. It was clear that the teachers'

experience with learning disabled children and with the LD teacher

facilitated early identification and referral. Those teachers who had

difficulty in selecting children to refer usually attributed it to their

lack of training in the area or to the fact that it was their first year

in the school.

In summary, both the teachers and the evaluator found the referral

system to be highly efficient and facilitative of the child's early

entry into the program. The speed and manner in which referrals were

processed was valued greatly by the teachers and contributed significantly

t.to their positive evaluation of the program.

Diagnostic Process. In every case the teachers reported that

follow-up conferences were most helpful to them in understanding the

nature of the child's problem and the remedial program that was

proposed: As in the previous year, the evaluator got the impression that

teachers would refer P. chile for this service alone, tarticularly in those

instances in which individualized prescriptions were prepared for the

teacher. Where other types or diagnostic services were available, warty

teachers reported that they preferred the service provided by the

project teacher.

At the same time, the diagnostic load borne by the project teachers

seemed to be less this year than last year. In the various schools the

"hit rate", i.g., proportwn of appropriate referrals, varied from

607, to 837, which indicates that most of the classroom teachers were

making appropriate referrals. Also, consultation by the LD teacher in the

eclectic schools during the referral prowess seemed to increase the

21

'hit rate' and thereby lead to more efficient diagnostic services.

Each of the teachers reported that they were favorably iMpresd

by the thoroughness of the diagnostic work-up, and felt that an extengive

assessment was essential for the identification of the child's needs.

Alsc the classroom teachers were impressed with the ability of the

project teachers to translate tecbnical information about the child

into meaningful language which not only facilitated their understanding

of the child's problem, but also that of his parents.

As in the previous year, the teacher's' knowledge and understanding

about the diagnostic process varied somewhat according to the model

that was used in her school. The teachers in the eclectic schools.

Seemed to have a greater sense of participation in the diagnostic process

and more clearly saw the relationship between diagnostic information

and the proposed instructional program for the child. The teachers in

the deficit schools were more likely to view the diagnosticiprocess

as providing essential information which contributed to their understanding

of the problem, but were less likely to use this information in

planning activities for the regular classroom. These impressions correlate

well with the figures in Table 1 on the frequency of teacher consultations

under each model, and suggest that the utilization of diagnostic information

does vary with the type of service which is offered.

Treatment Process. The classroom teachers were quite impressed

with the speed with which children were placed in project classes.

In every instance the teacher was able to delineate at least two areas

in which she could give examples of improvement. The teachers reported

that their childien were eager to go to the project classes, and that

many seemed to he more excited about school in general. Also, most of

the teachers commented on improved self concept and social behavior,

22

although frequently these were not the major reasons for referral.

As with the diagn-,,tic process, certain differences were noted in

the teachers' perception of the treatment process as carried out under

the deficit and eclect.....: models. The teachers in the eclectic schools

more often viewed the project teacher as a consultant as well as one

who offered direct services to children. Teachers in these schools seemed

to have a better idea of what methods were used and how they related

in a programmatic way to the curriculum.

Also, teachers in the eclectic schools were more likely to attribute

success to the instructional procedures that were used and to their

own efforts in carrying out the suggestions offered by the LD teacher.

These teachers valued tne prescriptive write-ups greatly and indicated

that the suggestions were quite practical and easily implemented in their

classes. They felt that they could continue with many of the procedures

that had been developed in the LD class and use them with other children

in their class who presented similar problems.

In the deficit schools, the teachers were more likely to attribute

success to enhanced self concept rather than to specific instructional

activities. When asked what produced the improvement they observed, they

frequently cited the support that was offered in a "one-to-one" relationship,

and often indicated that removal from the regular classroom was 4 necessary

condition for providing such support. Also, teachers in the deficit schools

were more likely to attribute success to the activities of the LD teacher

rather than to their own efforts.

Although the majority of the deficit model teachers commented that

they wished to be more involved in the treatment process, some seemed

to be quite comfortable with the resource arrangement and viewed the

LD teacher as an expert who wa, more adequately prepared to deal with

23

such problems. Also, a number of these teachers felt that they could

not provide the kind of individualized program required for the LI)

child in the regular classroom, and expressed doubts as to how effective

they would be in carryinveut the suggestions of the resource teacher.

In this regard, it was interesting to note that a fPw of the teachers

in eclectic schools spontaneously expressed some guilt over the fact

that they were unable to follow through on all of the recommendations

made by the LD teacher.

These findings suggest that there are marked individual differences

among classroom teachers in the extent to which they are either pre-

pared or inclined to use the resources offered by a particular LD program.

Since the services that are provided by the deficit and eclectic

approaches vary in degree of responsibility assigned to the classroom

teacher, greater attention should be devoted to the relationship

between the type of service that is offered and the classroom teachefs'

perceptions and expectations for the service. In this manner, it may

be possible to tailor awLD program to meet the needs of the individual

classroom teacher/child pair as joint consumers of the service as

opposed to concentrating on child services alone.

Parent Attitude. In general, the classroom teachers and principals

reported an accepting, favorable response from the parents they talked

to. Any difficulties in dealing with parents were attributed to the

.perception of the program as "special education" or to the parents'

general lack of participation in school affairs. In several instances,

the teachers indicated that they appreciated the LD teacher's assistance

in explaining the problem to parents and felt that they had profited

professionally from joint conferences.

Recommendations from Classroom Teachers.

(1) A nqmber of tearly!rs felt thAt the need) as so great in their

t.,

24

school as to warrent a second LD teacher or at least an aide for the

LD teacher. These teachers felt that additional children who fell

outside the IQ range in the program or who were in the upper grades might

be served also. Some teachers suggested that a team approach, e.g.,

LD teacher, psychometrician, aide, etc., might lead to a more expanded

range of services.

(2) In this regard, several teachers suggested that the children

should be seen for a longer period of time. It was felt that some

children with severe disabilities might require services over the entire

year, while those with less severe problems might only require several

months of'instruction.

(3) As in the previous year, teachers in the deficit model

schools frequently stated that they would like more contact with the

LD teacher. These teachers felt that they could better follow through

and reinforce the progress that had been made if they had a clearer

understanding of what was done and how it related to their curriculum.

(4) On the other hand, it was interesting to note that some of

the teachers in the eclectic schools felt that tFa LD teacher gave them

more ideas and materials than they could hope to use. In some case

they indicated that they were unable to follow through because the

materials required a one-to-one procedure and they were unable to

modify them for small group work or were unable to schedule a time for

one-to-one instruction.

(5) A number of teachers indicated that they wished to have more

time to consult the LD teachers and felt that an aide or parent volunteers

might he u,:ed to supervise classes.

(6) Several teachers indicated that they felt that the physical

facilities assigned to the LD teacher were not the best and that she

should have additional resoupees,to produge.and Oisseminate materials./ t, A4

4

25

In this regard, two teachers felt that the program could benefit from

a media component which would produce materials for the LD teacher.

(7) Also, the teachers frequently cited the need for continuing

teacher education in the field of learning disabilities. They felt that

workshops should not only be concerned with identification, but should

also concentrate on materials and methods which are appropriate for

specific types of learning problems.

(8) A -number of teachers were concerned about follow-up and

suggested that some provisions should be made for additional work with

the same children next year. Although these teachers were impressed with

the improvement that was shown, they often expressed the fear that the

child might regress without continued support from the LD teacher.

Parent Questionnaire

Each of the'parents of,children in the project was requested to

fill, out the questionnaire shown in Table 7. A total of 62 forms were

vetiirned, and the data were summarized in percentages in Table 7. In

general, these data show rather clearly that the program received the

support and approval of the vast majority'of parents. The only equivocal

response was item 5a (Did you have the opportunity to attend a workshop?).

Inspection of the forms and parents' comments suggests that the question

was widely misunderstood. Most parents who did not attend, could not

for a variety of reasons unrelated to the efforts of the resource teacher.

It is clear from the data in Table 7 that a significant number of parents

felt that MELD was a positive experience for them as well as for their child.

Follow-up Evaluation

in order to assess the longitudinal effects of project MELD, a

sample of 48 children who received services in the school based groups in

1972-73 ,q re lcr.ated and re-tested during January, 1974. Each child was

Table 7

Parent Questionnaire

1. Did you understand the nature and purposes of the resourceclassroom your child attended?

2. Were you made aware of your child's particular learningproblem through an individual parent- teacher conferencewith the resource teacher?

a. If not, did you have the opportunity to attendsuch a conference?

3. Did you feel that your child made progress in theclassroom as a result of going to the resource room?

4. Did you notice any positive difference in-your childat home?

5. Did you attend any of the parents' meetings offeredby the resource room teacher?

a. If not, did you have the opportunity to attenda parents' workshop?

b. If you did attend a parents' meeting, did you findit helpful?

6. If you felt there was aome improvement in your child,would you list the areas of improvement below:

90% listed some specific or general area of improvement.Of those, 61% listed academic improvement, 08% listedsocial improvement, 26% listed improvement in self-concept,and 19% mentioned improvement in attitude towards school &school work.

7. What other areas would you have liked to see improvement,but did not?

26% of the respondents answered this question. Of those,9 mentioned academic areas, 3 mentioned attitude and4, specific behaviors.

Yes'

95%-

26

No

05%

84% 16%

67% 33%

95% 05%

80% 20%

60% 40%

34% 66%

100%

8. Would you recommend this program to other parents? 100%

27

given the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT), the Classroom

Behavior Inventory (CBI) and the Phonics Test (PT). The follow-up /

design was a 2(model) x 4(grade) factorial for three occasions of measurement.

Student Characteristics.

The average age, IQ, and socio-economic rating for the subjects in

each group are given in Table 8. The sample contained 40 boys and 8

girls and was composed of 35 white and 13 black children. The average

IQ for the eclectic group was 98.53 and that for the deficit group was

98.29. The average SES rating for the eclectic group was 4.57 and that

for the deficit group was 3.80. Therefore, although the two groups were

well matched for ability level, the children who were sampled from

deficit classes were more advantaged than those who were sampled from

eclectic classes.

Academic Achievement

The average FIAT total grade equivalent scores for each group in

the follow-up sample are shown in Table 9 by grade level. The average

PIAT total standard scores are given in Table 10 for the same groups.

Change over Treatment Period. In order to determine the significance

of gains as the result of treatment, the average pre- and post-test scores

for the 1972-73 school year were compared by using t-tests for related

samples. When this analysis was carried out on the grade equivalent scores

for each group it was found that both the deficit and eclectic groups

made significant: progress on all PIAT subtests and on total achievement

over the period of treatment by project MELD teachers. The average gain

in total achievement for the eclectic group was .69 years (t = 7.62, 1)4 .01)

and that for the deficit group was .63 }ears = 7.15, p 4.01).

A 2(model) x 4(grade) analysis of variance on the gains in total achieve-

ment during the previons year failed to show significant differences

Table 8

Subject Cha;acteristics for Follow-up Sample

Model

Grlde

Eclectic Deficil

2 3 5 2

N 6 6 7 6 7 6

CA 93.17 108.0 118.86 130.83 95.43 105.67

IQ 95.0 101.6 97.86 99.83 96.43 95.17

SUS 5.2 4.8 4.0 4.3 3.14 4.5

t" 6

Table 8

Subject Characteristics for Follow-up Sample

Eclectic Deficit

3 4

6

108.0

101.6

4.8

7

118.86

97.86L

4.0

i 5

6

130.83

99.83

4.3

5

7 6 4 6

95.43 105.67 116.25 130.67

96.43 95.17 101.75 99.83

3.14 4.5 3.25 4.33

..4(0 j

N)co

29

Table 9

Mean FIAT Total Grade Equivalents for Follow-up Sample

Eclectic DeficitGrade

F72 S73 W74 F72 S71, W74

2 1.30 1.74 2.15 1.02 1.54 1.74

3 2.13 2.75 3.06 1.92 2.50 2.76

4 2.27 3.15 3.50 2.31 3.17 3.21

5 3.78 4.75 4.65 3.51 4.01 4.00

Total 2.33 3.03 3.27 2.26 2.89 3.00

,IS

Grade

2

3

4

5

Total

Tabie 10

Mean PIAT Total Standard Scores for Follow-up Sample

30

Eclectic

F72 S73

98.14 100.85

99.16 94.50

92.00 94.00

90.20 96.20

94.91 99.60

Deficit

W74 F72 S73 W74

96.71

92.00

88.50

89.00

93.69

90.20 96.20

94.80 97.60

87.85 93.50

90.83 92.33

90.65 94.72

89.00

91.60

88.00

86.16

88.52

31

between the two models or among the four grades in average improvement.

Therefore, it may be concluded that project MELD had a significant impact

on the achievement of LD students over the period of intervention and that

neither model was more effective than the other in this regard.

Change Over the Follow-Up Period. In order to assess the continued

progress of the students in each group a series of related t-tests was

carried out on the change in PIAT grade equivalent score, between last

year's post-test and this year's follow-up test. Although the eclectic

group showed a significant increase on the Reading Comprehension subtest,

all other comparisons failed to reach an acdeptable level of ;statistical

significance. Similarly, the only reliable gain that was made by the

deficit group over the follow-up period was on the General Information

subtest.

The average gain in total achievement for the eclectic group was

(24 years and that for the deficit group was .11 years. The analysis of

variance on these data failed to show significant differences between the

two models or among the grade levels in average gains following intervention.

Therefore, one must conclude that the children who received services in

project MELD did not continue to progress at the same rate after intervention

as they did while in treatment.

Averagc Gains Relative to Peer Group. Figure 1 shows the average

PIAT total grade equivalent score for each group and foi the total sample

on each occasion of, measurement. This figure illustrates the significant

progress made by each b oup over the course of intervention followed by a

leveling-off effect which both groups appear to make little additional

progress in the first half of the next school year. In order to assess the

progres,, of project MELD students in relation to that expected in their

pr.er groups, the average PIAT I,tandard scores were computed for each grade

.5.50

3.00

2.50

2.00

1.50

I-

Fall 1972

O Total Sample

- Eclectic

- Deficit

Spring 1973

Figure 1. Average FIAT Total Grade Equivalent Scores For Eacn Grou

Fall 1972

0 Total Sample

0 - Eclectic

A - Deficit

Spring 1973 Winter 1974

gure 1. Average FIAT Total Grade Equivalent Scores For Each Group.

ii"A.4

33

on each occasion of measurement. These data have been reported in

Table 10 and a plot of the average total standard scores is shown in

Figure 2.

The analysis of these data indicated that both groups showed

significant increases in their relative standing in total achievement

immediately after treatment, and showed significant decreases over the

period of the follow-up study. There were no significant differences

between the deficit and eclectic groups or among the four grade levels.

in this pattern of change. In general, a similar trend was observed for

each of the PIAT subtests. Therefore, although considerable progress

was noted during the period of intervention, the average child

in the program last year failed to maintain his relative level of attainment

after a period without special services.

Phonics Test

The average scores on the Phonics Test for each group on each occasion

of measurement are shown in Table 11.' The analysis of the change scores

for these data showed the same general trend noted above on the PIAT.

Thus, the average improvement over the course of intervention proved to

be significant for each group and no significant differences were found between

the two models. On the other hand, the eclectic group showed a slight

increase over the follow-up period, while the deficit group showed a

slight decrease. Therefore, although the children in the sample tended to

maintain their gains in this area, they made little additional progress

following intervention and in several instances showed moderate declines.

Classto'or Behavior Patterns

The average tea(her ratings on the Classroom Behavior Inventory for

each group at each occas'm of measurement are given in Table 12. As

in the prcviotr; year fe,: significant_ chatves were observed on this instrument.

1)

*-7,'C1

100_

95

I

90

85

/

/

ORM

Om-

..1

0 - Total Sample

- Eclectic

A - Deficit

I

Fall 1972 Spring 1973 Wi

Figure 2: Average FIAT Total Standard Scores for Each Group.

Q - Total Sample

- Eclectic

A - Deficdt

Fall 1972 Spring 1973 Winter 1974

re 2. Average PIAT Total Standard Scores for Each Group.

4 el;

/

35

Table 11.

Mean Phonics Scores for Follow-up Sample

Grade

2

3

4

5

Total

Eclectic

F72 S73

24.88 54.83

56.80 66.20

46.75 83.25

84.00 92.00

52.00 72.65

104

68.57

72.16

80.25

95.83

78.65

Deficit

F72 S73

10.60 34.00

26.00 81.00

53.53 86.00

79.83 96.83

44.63 76.09

W74

51.40

76.20

73.71

86.33

72.69

,i6

36

Table 12

Average Ratings on the CBI for the Follow-up-Sample

i

Task Orientation

Distractibility

Extroversion

Introversion

Considerateness

Hostility

Eclectic Deficit

Fall 72 Spring 73 Winter 74 Fall 72 Spring 73 Winter 74

7.16 7.61 7.44 7.31 8.21 7.78

9.89 10.04 8.87 9.92 9.37 9.34

7.80 8.25 8.29 9.92 9.75 8.75

7.96 7.87 7.09 6.04 5.83 5.86

9.29 10.05 9.4t 8.49 9.58 8.37

5.52 5.16 6.41 6.89 6.47 6.47

47

37

Over the period of intervention, the eclectic group showed a decline

in average ratings on the Hostility scale and the deficit group showed

an increase on the Considerateness scale. No significant effects were

found as a function of either remediation model, grade level, or

occasion of measurement.

Given the evaluation findings of the previous year and those

reported above for this year using the Pupil Rating Scale, one might well

question the utility of this instrument for assessing change in social

or personal behavior. Also, given the fact that no substantial changes

were demonstrated on this instrument over the period of intervention,

one would have little reason to expect any over the follow-up period.

Summary and Conclusions

During the 1973 -74 school year, project MELD delivered services to

approximately 134 learning disabled children in grades 1-4 according

to one of two alternative models. The deficit model emphasized the

remediation of specific weaknesses through one-to-one instruction by

a resource teacher. The eclectic model stressed teacher consultation

and attempted to capitalize on strengths as well as remediate weaknesses.

In order to evaluate program effectiveness, a sample of 97 children

who participated in the project were pre-and post-tested on measures of

academic achievement and classroom behavior. Parents were asked to complete

a questionnaire and 24 classroom teachers were interviewed by the

external evaluator. Also, a sample of 48 children who received services

the previous year were followed-up and retested with measures of

achievement and classroom behavior.

The analysis of these data indicated that project WELD had a

significant impact on both the academic and social competences of learning

disabled children. As in the previous year, the children who received

4s

38

the services of pr, ect teachers made rather substantial gains in

.academic achievement over the period of the study which were well

substantiated by teacher reports of student progress. The data indicated

\that the average child who participated in the program was below grade

level when referred and was functioning at grade level when intervention

was terminated. Also, the classroom teachers who referred students to the

program rated their children as significantly improved in both academic

skills and in personal/social behavior.

The results from interviews with referring classroom teachers offered

considerable evidence of teacher acceptance and support for the program.

The teachers particularly valued the diagnostic work-ups and conferences,

and were able to cite a number of specific instances where the project

teacher had facilitated :heir work with a child or had changed the way

they perceived his problems in the classroom. Similarly, the teachers

reported an accepting, favorable attitude on the part of most parents

which was also evident in the data from the parent questionnaire.

As in the previous year, the program's success in promoting parent

involvement was one of the most effective components of the project.

At the same time, the evaluation findings reported above revealed

several trends which seem to have important implicationS for future program

planning. First, the analysis of the follow-up data indicated that the

children who received services the previous year failed to progress

academically at the same rate over the first half of the next year without

additional .96rvices. Thus, the findings tend to support the concerns

frequently expressed by parents and classroom teachers that their children

would not mnintain their pains without continued support from the ID teacher.

However, it should be noted that these results are not uncommon in the

39

literature on special iptervention, particularly when the planned intervention

is aimed at a specific pr'Oblem and is ,f limited duration.

Secondly, although the findings reported above and those reported

the previuus year provide lit e support for the conclusion that either

model is more effective in the 1 ng run than the other, the data do

suggest a trend in this regard whi h requires some cement. For example,

the results suggest that the type of -Ioncent.rated, onetoone instruction

that was provided in the deficit class\ may have more immediate benefits

in specific academic areas than that prow ded in the eclectic classes.

On the other hand, the kinds of services of ered by the eclectic teachers

may have more immediate effects on the social and academic behavior

of the child in the classroom. The interpretation of these trends is

complicated by the fact that children received different amounts of

instruction under the two models and by the fact that little information

was available on the nature and effectiveness of teacher consultation

services.

In summary, the project was carried out by a highly competent and

energetic staff. The management of the program was excellent and staff

morale was high. The evaluation findings for the second year underscore

the major conclusion that was reached the first year--that Project MELD

continues to be an innovative and successful program which has demonstrated

a significant impact on the students, teachers and community it was designed

to serve. The problem remains of specifying those factors which

facilitate the child's progress In the program and contribute to his

continu?d progress after the program.